LaxPower Back-Up Stick

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 7:44 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 12:48 pm Remember when Christine Blasey Ford refused to testify if she would be questioned by lawyers?

Oh wait. No. That was AG William Barr who showed that level of cowardice.

wait, was that a congressional over site hearing? No

Members of that committee have oversite, not their staff lawyers. Now the lawyers can write their question but they have to ask them. But they would look foolish when Barr hit them with an answer they didn't understand. Like something ti do with the constitution or a law the voted on years ago about not releasing certain info in special council reports.

CU88 wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 3:53 pm Rubio nails it!

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/ ... 8448165888

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 8:47 am

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 7:44 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 12:48 pm Remember when Christine Blasey Ford refused to testify if she would be questioned by lawyers?

Oh wait. No. That was AG William Barr who showed that level of cowardice.

wait, was that a congressional over site hearing? No

Members of that committee have oversite, not their staff lawyers. Now the lawyers can write their question but they have to ask them. But they would look foolish when Barr hit them with an answer they didn't understand. Like something ti do with the constitution or a law the voted on years ago about not releasing certain info in special council reports.

When you learn to spell, we'll take your opinions more seriously.

Scientists have found that people who constantly get bothered by grammatical errors online have "less agreeable" personalities than those who just let them slide.

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:58 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 8:47 am

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 7:44 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 12:48 pm Remember when Christine Blasey Ford refused to testify if she would be questioned by lawyers?

Oh wait. No. That was AG William Barr who showed that level of cowardice.

wait, was that a congressional over site hearing? No

Members of that committee have oversite, not their staff lawyers. Now the lawyers can write their question but they have to ask them. But they would look foolish when Barr hit them with an answer they didn't understand. Like something ti do with the constitution or a law the voted on years ago about not releasing certain info in special council reports.

When you learn to spell, we'll take your opinions more seriously.

People Who Constantly Point Out Grammar Mistakes Are Pretty Much jerks, Scientists Find

Scientists have found that people who constantly get bothered by grammatical errors online have "less agreeable" personalities than those who just let them slide.

https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who ... tists-find

MDlaxfan76:When you learn to spell, we'll take your opinions more seriously.

Laxman (?) 3221:People Who Constantly Point Out Grammar Mistakes Are Pretty Much jerks, Scientists Find.

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 11:53 am

MDlaxfan76:When you learn to spell, we'll take your opinions more seriously.

Laxman (?) 3221:People Who Constantly Point Out Grammar Mistakes Are Pretty Much jerks, Scientists Find.

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 12:05 pm

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 11:53 am

MDlaxfan76:When you learn to spell, we'll take your opinions more seriously.

Laxman (?) 3221:People Who Constantly Point Out Grammar Mistakes Are Pretty Much jerks, Scientists Find.

30-love,MD. Can you hold serve against this formidable person(?) when laxwhatever 3221 is released from a 2 day stay in the penalty box?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:36 pm

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 12:05 pm

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 11:53 am

MDlaxfan76:When you learn to spell, we'll take your opinions more seriously.

Laxman (?) 3221:People Who Constantly Point Out Grammar Mistakes Are Pretty Much jerks, Scientists Find.

30-love,MD. Can you hold serve against this formidable person(?) when laxwhatever 3221 is released from a 2 day stay in the penalty box?

Interesting mix of sports analogies!

Being called a 'jerk' no sweat, but back in the day being called the c-word would mean bench clearing, post penalty box, gloves dropping. But here we are on anonymous social media. Thankfully we have a referee who only takes the flag out of his pocket when the foul is egregious. Gives a chance to chill a bit.

On the substance of 3221's point, which indeed is difficult to take seriously if he can't even spell 'oversight' correctly, the argument is entirely specious, made up by the Trumpists to feed the ill-informed's ignorance further.

There are no prohibitions on Congressional committees deciding to utilize a staff lawyer, or for that matter someone hired from outside, to do the questioning in any hearing. The Representatives or Senators simply waive their allocated time to the person doing the questioning. The Committee Chair determines the time and length of any questioning and is only obligated to provide a proportional amount of time to each side based on its representation on the committee. In no instance are the terms dictated by the party before the committee, though committee chairs will often negotiate such process terms as part of getting the witness to be cooperative rather than under subpoena.

In the questioning of Ford, the all-male Republican Senators wanted to avoid the impression of being insensitive to a woman making significant and credible claims of having been subjected to sexual assault, though their partisan intent was to discredit such claims. So, they hired a female prosecutor. But when they found themselves in the awkward position of this process not sufficiently discrediting her, they took back their time and used the time themselves to make emotional appeals, while no longer asking Ford questions. They made speeches instead, Lindsey Graham most famously. All within their prerogative.

In this situation, the Dem Reps are concerned about not being able to get to the truth with Barr, given his dissembling and filibustering. They'd rather waive their individual time for personal grandstanding in order to dig deeper, with a single questioner pursuing a coherent line of questioning. Entirely within their prerogative.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:59 pm If they had all yielded their time to one of their members, who is the most able interrogator, they could have questioned Barr without breaking the precedent of Senate confirmed cabinet members being questioned by members, not staff, in routine oversight hearings.

Ford was not a Senate confirmed Cabinet member. It was not a Congressional oversight hearing.

It'a a stunt. Nadler wanted the controversy more than he wanted to question Barr.
If he doesn't have one member capable of questioning Barr, he needs different members.

Nadler wants the powers of an impeachment hearing without taking the political heat of holding them.

Do the (D)'s really want to change this precedent for oversight of future (D) Admin cabinet members ?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:59 pm If they had all yielded their time to one of their members, who is the most able interrogator, they could have questioned Barr without breaking the precedent of Senate confirmed cabinet members being questioned by members, not staff, in routine oversight hearings.

Ford was not a Senate confirmed Cabinet member. It was not a Congressional oversight hearing.

It'a a stunt. Nadler wanted the controversy more than he wanted to question Barr.
If he doesn't have one member capable of questioning Barr, he needs different members.

Nadler wants the powers of an impeachment hearing without taking the political heat of holding them.

Do the (D)'s really want to change this precedent for oversight of future (D) Admin cabinet members ?

Keep peddling the nonsense that there's any sort of rule preventing the Committee Chair's from using whatever method he/she wishes, as if 'routine oversight' has any different rules than any other type of hearing (other than impeachment which indeed does have some specific rules).

BTW, what aspect of Barr's appearance would be 'routine oversight'?

Are you really citing 'precedent'???
sheesh the hypocrisy

And do you really think it would be somehow wrong for a future D cabinet official to face staff counsel? Particularly in as complicated and detailed an issue as this matter? I don't.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 9:54 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:59 pm If they had all yielded their time to one of their members, who is the most able interrogator, they could have questioned Barr without breaking the precedent of Senate confirmed cabinet members being questioned by members, not staff, in routine oversight hearings.

Ford was not a Senate confirmed Cabinet member. It was not a Congressional oversight hearing.

It'a a stunt. Nadler wanted the controversy more than he wanted to question Barr.
If he doesn't have one member capable of questioning Barr, he needs different members.

Nadler wants the powers of an impeachment hearing without taking the political heat of holding them.

Do the (D)'s really want to change this precedent for oversight of future (D) Admin cabinet members ?

Keep peddling the nonsense that there's any sort of rule preventing the Committee Chair's from using whatever method he/she wishes, as if 'routine oversight' has any different rules than any other type of hearing (other than impeachment which indeed does have some specific rules).

BTW, what aspect of Barr's appearance would be 'routine oversight'?

Are you really citing 'precedent'???
sheesh the hypocrisy

And do you really think it would be somehow wrong for a future D cabinet official to face staff counsel? Particularly in as complicated and detailed an issue as this matter? I don't.

Never happened in over 200 years! But the hatred for Trump is so virulent any precedent can be overturned right?

old salt wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 4:16 pm Do you read what you post ? It was a House Select Committee, established specifically to conduct a detailed investigation of a specific issue.
It was not routine oversight by a standing committee of Senate confirmed Cabinet Officials.

It's a stunt. Nadler wants to put on a faux impeachment dog & pony show, yet (D) leadership won't run the risk of holding impeachment hearings.

These Congressional video shows are already a joke.This would only make it worse.
You think once the precedent is set, it won't be abused again ?

You're just like the whiny (D)'s. Impeach or st#u. They're beating a dead horse.

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 7:31 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 4:16 pm Do you read what you post ? It was a House Select Committee, established specifically to conduct a detailed investigation of a specific issue.
It was not routine oversight by a standing committee of Senate confirmed Cabinet Officials.

It's a stunt. Nadler wants to put on a faux impeachment dog & pony show, yet (D) leadership won't run the risk of holding impeachment hearings.

These Congressional video shows are already a joke.This would only make it worse.
You think once the precedent is set, it won't be abused again ?

You're just like the whiny (D)'s. Impeach or st#u. They're beating a dead horse.

I do indeed try to "read what I post".Doesn't everyone? I further believe there's no need for whiny D's or whiny Rs or whiny Cs or whiny Bs or any other whiny group to mention the word impeachment. IMHO,that would be an egregious waste of time and money.

I imagine this Old Salt is a legal scholar of note,understands full well that if the "House Select Committee, established specifically to conduct a detailed investigation of a "specific issue" and in examining that specific issue and believes in good faith there may be an issue that MAY OR MAY NOT be illegal or criminal,they should KEEP THEIR COLLECTIVE MOUTH'S SHUT.

Wow this NaCl knows his stuff. Be willing to bet a shekel or 2 he's a defense attorney.

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 8:00 pm

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 7:31 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 4:16 pm Do you read what you post ? It was a House Select Committee, established specifically to conduct a detailed investigation of a specific issue.
It was not routine oversight by a standing committee of Senate confirmed Cabinet Officials.

It's a stunt. Nadler wants to put on a faux impeachment dog & pony show, yet (D) leadership won't run the risk of holding impeachment hearings.

These Congressional video shows are already a joke.This would only make it worse.
You think once the precedent is set, it won't be abused again ?

You're just like the whiny (D)'s. Impeach or st#u. They're beating a dead horse.

I do indeed try to "read what I post". Doesn't everyone? I further believe there's no need for whiny D's or whiny Rs or whiny Cs or whiny Bs or any other whiny group to even mention the word impeachment. IMHO,that would be an egregious waste of time and money.

I imagine this Old Salt is a legal scholar of note.He wouldn't comment on this if he didn't fully understands if the "House Select Committee, established specifically to conduct a detailed investigation of a "specific issue" and in examining that specific issue and believes in good faith there may be an issue that MAY OR MAY NOT be illegal or criminal,they should KEEP THEIR COLLECTIVE MOUTH'S SHUT.

Wow this NaCl knows his stuff. Be willing to bet a shekel or 2 he's a defense attorney.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.